A six figure sum awarded by a High Court Judge in London recently attracted much press attention. Helen Green, 36, a City secretary who brought proceedings against her former employer, Deutsche Bank, claiming psychiatric injury for bullying and harassment received £828,000 in damages. Ms Green claimed that her fellow employees in the Company secretarial division had engaged in offensive, abusive, intimidating, humiliating, patronising, infantile and insulting words and behaviour. Mr Justice Owen held that the behaviour was “a deliberate and concerted campaign of bullying within the ordinary meaning of that term”. He also found it to be a longstanding problem in the department and commented that the bank’s management was “weak and ineffectual”. He awarded Ms Green £35,000 for pain and suffering; £25,000 for disadvantage on the labour market; £128,000 for past loss of earnings, and £640,000 for future loss of earnings including pension. In addition her former employers were ordered to pay her legal costs which will probably double the amount of the award of damages. It is important to note that Ms Green was not a City high-flyer in terms of her earnings; her salary was £45,000, a sum which many employees in Northern Ireland now enjoy. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that Courts in this Jurisdiction could award a similar level of damages, perhaps even more. Judges here have traditionally been more generous when assessing future loss of earnings because of the historically disadvantaged job market in Northern Ireland when compared with the rest of the UK. Another recent decision of note with undoubtedly greater legal ramifications is that of Majrowski v. Guy’s & St Thomas’ NHS Trust, a decision of the House of Lords. Mr Majrowski worked for the Defendant as an audit co-ordinator and claimed he had been bullied by his Manager. Unlike Ms Green he did not bring proceedings for negligence and breach of contract but instead relied on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland being the Protection from Harassment (NI) Order 1997). This legislation was originally designed to prevent stalking, but the Law Lords ruled that Parliament had intended that the legislation should give rise to vicarious liability. Quite simply this means that an employer could be held legally responsible for the bullying of their employee even if they did not know what their employee was doing. The Majrowski decision has potentially serious implications for employers since it gives employees who claim to have been bullied or harassed at work a further basis upon which to claim compensation from their employers. Critically, some of the existing limitations and defences will not be available. For example, an employer has a defence under existing discrimination legislation if it can show that it took all reasonably practicable steps to prevent discriminatory harassment occurring. This would not help an employer facing a claim that it was vicariously liable for an employee’s harassment under the Act. Furthermore, a claimant need not show that he has suffered a recognised psychiatric injury; distress or anxiety will suffice. Additionally, the normal three year limitation period will not apply and a claimant has up to six years to bring a claim under the Protection from Harassment legislation. It is therefore essential that employers seek to establish a set of underlying values which become part of the culture of their organisation in order to minimise the risk of bullying and harassment claims arising. Having well intentioned policies on paper is unlikely to be enough. Employers need to ensure that positive steps are taken to eradicate any culture of bullying or harassment which may exist. Unlike Ms Green, Mr Majrowski has not suffered any lasting psychological illness as a result of his harassment in the workplace. In terms of damages his claim under the Act is probably worth only a few thousand pounds. Even so, many employers know to their own cost the impact of litigation in terms of employees’ time, resources and morale, let alone the legal costs involved in defending such cases. As always, prevention is better than cure and employers would be well advised, if they have not already done so, to seek legal advice on how to minimise the risk of bullying and harassment claims arising within their organisation. |
Back